lol...and now the rallying cry of the egalitarian, democratic-socialist millennials is the same as their ultra-conservative, racist, hippy-hating grandfathers. 'merica, love it or leave it.

All things do indeed come full circle, usually in the most hilarious of ways.

No, there is are distinct and fundamental differences in the two arguments.

The hippy-hating grandfathers were saying if you do not agree with the policies of this country, you should leave rather than speak out against those policies.

In the current argument, the issue is that everyone take advantages of society by simply living here. It is unavoidable. You get all the benefits of roads, courts, police, food safety, environmental quality, etc. And because you are getting the benefits, you should pay . It doesn't matter if you want the benefits or not, you still get them. But you are not being forced to pay for anything against your will, because you can simply leave.

lol...and now the rallying cry of the egalitarian, democratic-socialist millennials is the same as their ultra-conservative, racist, hippy-hating grandfathers. 'merica, love it or leave it.

All things do indeed come full circle, usually in the most hilarious of ways.

No, there is are distinct and fundamental differences in the two arguments.

The hippy-hating grandfathers were saying if you do not agree with the policies of this country, you should leave rather than speak out against those policies.

In the current argument, the issue is that everyone take advantages of society by simply living here. It is unavoidable. You get all the benefits of roads, courts, police, food safety, environmental quality, etc. And because you are getting the benefits, you should pay . It doesn't matter if you want the benefits or not, you still get them. But you are not being forced to pay for anything against your will, because you can simply leave.

Indeed! Such a ridiculous, non-provable and generic concept absolutely MUST be argued!

I disagree with your assumptions.

The hippy hating grandfathers also had a saying “get a job”. Which is representative of their belief that ‘merica love it or leave it meant; start contributing to the benefit of the country and society before you criticize the status quo. Them’s the rules, if you don’t like‘em leave.

Whereas, the similar millennial cry to those who disagree with equalitarianism/social programs is closer to the idea…The majority want these services available, if you don’t agree go to university for a proper indoctrination & then you will understand. In the meantime, we are smarter than you, so take what we are offering and pay your share. If you don’t like it leave.

In all fairness, ARS clearly stated later in the thread (after my comment)

I came to this thread hoping to learn more about libertarianism, because what little I've seen before made the proponents look like heartless whack-jobs. That includes reading Ayn Rand. Even with the input of serious reasonable posters (as opposed to trolling), at this point it sounds like the "libertarian paradise" would merely replace some government functions with a great many private lawsuits to settle who infringed on whom.

I came to this thread hoping to learn more about libertarianism, because what little I've seen before made the proponents look like heartless whack-jobs. That includes reading Ayn Rand. Even with the input of serious reasonable posters (as opposed to trolling), at this point it sounds like the "libertarian paradise" would merely replace some government functions with a great many private lawsuits to settle who infringed on whom.

This does not sound like a happy society to me.

People can't just live as little individual islands. There has to be some other social structure to replace laws/ consequences etc. but hopefully it would be more fluid and not simply mandated like government is.

I came to this thread hoping to learn more about libertarianism, because what little I've seen before made the proponents look like heartless whack-jobs. That includes reading Ayn Rand. Even with the input of serious reasonable posters (as opposed to trolling), at this point it sounds like the "libertarian paradise" would merely replace some government functions with a great many private lawsuits to settle who infringed on whom.

This does not sound like a happy society to me.

FWIW, I identify most with libertarianism and I'll be the first one to tell you that I don't agree with all of its facets. People portray Libertarians to the extreme. Nope, I don't agree with 100% privatized education and healthcare. That would be awful. That's like saying all democrats are pure socialists and all republicans are pure capitalists. No thank you, no need to label me.

I'm libertarian in a sense that I don't think the government should be limited to two political parties that are logically inconsistent.

Republicans: We won't tell you what to do with your money but we sure as hell CAN tell a woman what to do with her body!Democrats: We won't tell you who you can and can't marry but btw we're going to tell you how your money should be spent and that you can't own semi-automatic rifles!

I came to this thread hoping to learn more about libertarianism, because what little I've seen before made the proponents look like heartless whack-jobs. That includes reading Ayn Rand. Even with the input of serious reasonable posters (as opposed to trolling), at this point it sounds like the "libertarian paradise" would merely replace some government functions with a great many private lawsuits to settle who infringed on whom.

This does not sound like a happy society to me.

I like the whole "I don't like trolls" inside a troll. Five stars!

Logged

Some will sell their dreams for small desiresOr lose the race to ratsGet caught in ticking trapsAnd start to dream of somewhereTo relax their restless flight

I came to this thread hoping to learn more about libertarianism, because what little I've seen before made the proponents look like heartless whack-jobs. That includes reading Ayn Rand. Even with the input of serious reasonable posters (as opposed to trolling), at this point it sounds like the "libertarian paradise" would merely replace some government functions with a great many private lawsuits to settle who infringed on whom.

This does not sound like a happy society to me.

I like the whole "I don't like trolls" inside a troll. Five stars!

Crap. Good catch. I fell for it, too.

Logged

Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

I was not trolling. I read every post in the thread to see what I could glean, as I genuinely wanted to learn more. (My God, who would gut it out through that horrendous polemic at the end of Atlas Shrugged otherwise??) But I'm not allowed to express an opinion on what I've heard so far?

I was not trolling. I read every post in the thread to see what I could glean, as I genuinely wanted to learn more. (My God, who would gut it out through that horrendous polemic at the end of Atlas Shrugged otherwise??) But I'm not allowed to express an opinion on what I've heard so far?

If my take on it was wrong, why not educate me?

Ayn Rand was identifying a problem . . . specifically that well meaning rules and regulations can lead to overreach and end up causing oppression that ends up hurting society. She raised valid issues . . . but her approach (and Libertarianism in general) is an overreaction that has been proven impossible to work in reality. That's the reason that Rand herself decided it would be wise to take advantage of government programs when she was broke and sick at the end of her life.

I was not trolling. I read every post in the thread to see what I could glean, as I genuinely wanted to learn more. (My God, who would gut it out through that horrendous polemic at the end of Atlas Shrugged otherwise??) But I'm not allowed to express an opinion on what I've heard so far?

If my take on it was wrong, why not educate me?

Ayn Rand was identifying a problem . . . specifically that well meaning rules and regulations can lead to overreach and end up causing oppression that ends up hurting society. She raised valid issues . . . but her approach (and Libertarianism in general) is an overreaction that has been proven impossible to work in reality. That's the reason that Rand herself decided it would be wise to take advantage of government programs when she was broke and sick at the end of her life.

Actually: she was trying to identify a systemic philosophy that entirely derived from the premise "A is A" (from Aristotle). You may disagree with her premise. You may disagree with her logic or find faults in it, but that was her goal. A vast majority of people see only a few of her conclusions (and either vehemently agree or disagree) without ever looking at her arguments. For instance, you will see a large number of religious right embracing her, while not noticing or ignoring that her conclusions were built on a metaphysics that embraced the impossibility of a supreme being.

And as to taking Social Security/Medicare: she articulated earlier in life that if you're forced to pay into these programs, she had no problems then using them. That said, she DID have problems using them and wouldn't. It took someone that had her power of attorney to sign up for them because she would not, even when broke and sick.

Logged

Some will sell their dreams for small desiresOr lose the race to ratsGet caught in ticking trapsAnd start to dream of somewhereTo relax their restless flight

Actually: she was trying to identify a systemic philosophy that entirely derived from the premise "A is A" (from Aristotle). You may disagree with her premise. You may disagree with her logic or find faults in it, but that was her goal. A vast majority of people see only a few of her conclusions (and either vehemently agree or disagree) without ever looking at her arguments. For instance, you will see a large number of religious right embracing her, while not noticing or ignoring that her conclusions were built on a metaphysics that embraced the impossibility of a supreme being.

And as to taking Social Security/Medicare: she articulated earlier in life that if you're forced to pay into these programs, she had no problems then using them. That said, she DID have problems using them and wouldn't. It took someone that had her power of attorney to sign up for them because she would not, even when broke and sick.

Interesting. It's certainly difficult for some people to live an individualistic, self-reliant lifestyle when society pushes us so strongly to conform.

Logged

Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

Next time a "taxation is theft" person chides me for wanting to collect SS and other benefits I will remind them of what Ayn Rand did and see how they react.

"Like Ayn Rand, I am taking advantage of programs that I paid into. I didn't want to receive SS checks but, alas, my spouse/child/brother signed me up for them and I was forced to cash the check."

If social security is still around when I'm eligible I'll certainly be applying and getting as much out of it as I can, after all it's my money I paid into and earned a crappy ROI on. I don't see anything logically inconsistent about opposing these programs while trying to recover some of your own money that you've dumped in the hole.

Given the choice, I'd rather opt out and have autonomy over my own capital though vs. having it removed from me at gunpoint and returned to me decades later.

Logged

Every single decision you make with money either shortens or lengthens your working career.

Agreed. I found Atlas Shrugged to be full of cool ideas when I first read it. Certainly more enjoyable that slogging through George RR Martin's stuff.

I read it a long time ago, but I found it awfully dry. I don't remember a lot of it, but there is one part of the book near the end where they are going around the room and all the great minds explain why they left society and gathered at Galt's Gulch. The composer, the engineer, etc. Finally we get to the doctor, who has found a cure for strokes. The doctor explains society has all these rules for doctors including how much he can get paid, and he doesn't like any of those rules. So society can suck it, they don't get the cure, only the Galt's Gulch folks can share in this miraculous discovery. Okay fair enough.

But contrast to a real doctor, Jonas Salk, who discovered a vaccination for a real disease, polio. Polio was one of the most feared diseases in the world, which killed annually tens of thousands of people in the US, mostly children, and left hundreds of thousands more permanently crippled. Salk refused to make dime on his discovery, instead hoping that his vaccine could be distributed as far and wide and as fast as possible. And in fact that's what happened. Salk and his colleagues positively affected literally millions of lives.

So, the question for me kind of comes down to who would I rather live next to? The bitter doctor who hordes his discovery to himself because he's offended by society? Or the guy who rolls up his sleeves and makes society better?

No question in my book. And fortunately, the bitter doctor is fictional and there really was a Jonas Salk.

Given the choice, I'd rather opt out and have autonomy over my own capital though vs. having it removed from me at gunpoint and returned to me decades later.

America gives you that choice! You are free to stop using all of the benefits the US government provides (roads, power, education, etc.) by moving somewhere else.

No. America USED to give you that choice, by virtue of decentralization and allowing states to determine their own priorities. The founding principles of this country called for a loose confederation of states so people could do exactly that - choose where they wanted to live based on their conception of freedom and autonomy.

The invasion of the Confederacy put an end to the fiction that the government existed at the behest of the people. Now, there is no state sovereignty, no state nullification of federal law, and no meaningful differences in the way states moderate federal authority. People on both sides of the political aisle should be concerned about that.

No. America USED to give you that choice, by virtue of decentralization and allowing states to determine their own priorities. The founding principles of this country called for a loose confederation of states so people could do exactly that - choose where they wanted to live based on their conception of freedom and autonomy.

The invasion of the Confederacy put an end to the fiction that the government existed at the behest of the people. Now, there is no state sovereignty, no state nullification of federal law, and no meaningful differences in the way states moderate federal authority. People on both sides of the political aisle should be concerned about that.

That's simply bad alternative history. The Constitution clearly states that Federal law trumps state law. States have never been able to nullify federal laws. States are not compelled to enforce federal laws in most cases, but they can't block them in any case.

What a shock that the United States Supreme Court has failed to uphold the principles of the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions. The supremacy clause is only valid if the originating federal laws are, themselves, constitutional. The only recourse in our Republic to a federal government passing unconstitutional laws IS nullification. The Supreme Court is a rubber stamp authority, as we saw during FDR's reign, where constitutionality seldom enters into it.

Yes, if you look at historic interpretation of the constitution, states don't have the "right" to nullify federal law... because we invaded them the one time that it's been put to the test.

The invasion of the Confederacy put an end to the fiction that the government existed at the behest of the people... states don't have the "right" to nullify federal law... because we invaded them the one time that it's been put to the test.

You're about two steps away from "The South Shall Rise Again!" while you burn a wooden cross on my front lawn.

The America I live in asks that you follow certain rules. You are not obliged to follow them, unless you want to live among us. Life here is pretty sweet though, so I'd suggest you play along.

The invasion of the Confederacy put an end to the fiction that the government existed at the behest of the people... states don't have the "right" to nullify federal law... because we invaded them the one time that it's been put to the test.

You're about two steps away from "The South Shall Rise Again!" while you burn a wooden cross on my front lawn.

No kidding. Using the Confederacy as an argument in favor of libertarianism? Holy shit.

The invasion of the Confederacy put an end to the fiction that the government existed at the behest of the people... states don't have the "right" to nullify federal law... because we invaded them the one time that it's been put to the test.

You're about two steps away from "The South Shall Rise Again!" while you burn a wooden cross on my front lawn.

The America I live in asks that you follow certain rules. You are not obliged to follow them, unless you want to live among us. Life here is pretty sweet though, so I'd suggest you play along.

Yeah it's definitely great to paint people as racists without knowing them. It makes you sound like a really great person.

The "rules" thing is a good point though. I hope you never voice any political disagreement, and go with the flow this next four years. After all, better be a good statist or gtfo right? You'd be very popular with all my lgbt friends here in NC with that delightful opinion.

3) EVEN IF the secession of states was motivated by slavery, that still created a foreign and sovereign entity, and invading that entity is a separate moral issue from the one that forced secession.

4) The United States doesn't have the moral authority to conscript its own citizens, much less conscript them in the service of a foreign offensive war

The United States didn't even outlaw slavery in its own territories until well after the invasion had started. The two issues can (and should) be philosophically separable when you are talking about states rights. It is possible to believe that states have the moral right to secede and form their own unions, in any combination and for any reason, without also being pro-slavery. It is silly that even has to be stated, but apparently here we are.

3) EVEN IF the secession of states was motivated by slavery, that still created a foreign and sovereign entity, and invading that entity is a separate moral issue from the one that forced secession.

4) The United States doesn't have the moral authority to conscript its own citizens, much less conscript them in the service of a foreign offensive war

The United States didn't even outlaw slavery in its own territories until well after the invasion had started. The two issues can (and should) be philosophically separable when you are talking about states rights. It is possible to believe that states have the moral right to secede and form their own unions, in any combination and for any reason, without also being pro-slavery. It is silly that even has to be stated, but apparently here we are.

Even if all of the above was true, it's just a really bad idea to use the Confederacy as an argument in favor of libertarianism and states' rights. I realize that there isn't a good example of a true libertarian state (kinda like communism) but the south and "it wasn't about slavery! it was about states' rights!) is not a good place to stand. There are dozens of books written on the subject that you can read.

Just trying to help. If you want to continue using this stance, don't be surprised when people are stunned and incredulous and associate libertarians with Bad Ideas.

3) EVEN IF the secession of states was motivated by slavery, that still created a foreign and sovereign entity, and invading that entity is a separate moral issue from the one that forced secession.

4) The United States doesn't have the moral authority to conscript its own citizens, much less conscript them in the service of a foreign offensive war

The United States didn't even outlaw slavery in its own territories until well after the invasion had started. The two issues can (and should) be philosophically separable when you are talking about states rights. It is possible to believe that states have the moral right to secede and form their own unions, in any combination and for any reason, without also being pro-slavery. It is silly that even has to be stated, but apparently here we are.

Even if all of the above was true, it's just a really bad idea to use the Confederacy as an argument in favor of libertarianism and states' rights. I realize that there isn't a good example of a true libertarian state (kinda like communism) but the south and "it wasn't about slavery! it was about states' rights!) is not a good place to stand. There are dozens of books written on the subject that you can read.

Just trying to help. If you want to continue using this stance, don't be surprised when people are stunned and incredulous and associate libertarians with Bad Ideas.

And if you actually read what I wrote, I am not using the confederacy as an example of anything. The Confederacy was an autocratic centrally planned state where slavery was legal. It's as far away from libertarian as you can get.

I'm using the INVASION of the south as an example of the federal approach toward state nullification and secession, which is troubling insofar as state nullification appears to me to be the only path forward to a libertarian system here in the Americas. I'd love to see a future where Colorado and California are free to pursue their own divergent agendas in the face of a reactionary federal govt, but we've set a precedent where secession can 'legally' be met with invasion, which is SO far from what the founders had in mind.

The invasion of the Confederacy put an end to the fiction that the government existed at the behest of the people... states don't have the "right" to nullify federal law... because we invaded them the one time that it's been put to the test.

You're about two steps away from "The South Shall Rise Again!" while you burn a wooden cross on my front lawn.

The America I live in asks that you follow certain rules. You are not obliged to follow them, unless you want to live among us. Life here is pretty sweet though, so I'd suggest you play along.

Yeah it's definitely great to paint people as racists without knowing them. It makes you sound like a really great person.

The "rules" thing is a good point though. I hope you never voice any political disagreement, and go with the flow this next four years. After all, better be a good statist or gtfo right? You'd be very popular with all my lgbt friends here in NC with that delightful opinion.

Anyway, edgelords complaining about taxes as theft from mom's basement are, what, 30% of troll activity here? Is there really so much Venn diagram overlap between them and WAR OF NORTHERN AGGRESSION people? I always pictured the taxes as theft people more as college dropouts in the northern suburbs, but I'd still rather have them here than apologists for the civil war. However, here we have a rare troll (rare Pepe?) who thinks treason for owning black people is justified because of federal government overreach but paying taxes is theft. Also, waves hands, something something lgbt (???), which I think is the "I have black friends" moment in the conversation.

And if you actually read what I wrote, I am not using the confederacy as an example of anything. The Confederacy was an autocratic centrally planned state where slavery was legal. It's as far away from libertarian as you can get.

I'm using the INVASION of the south as an example of the federal approach toward state nullification and secession, which is troubling insofar as state nullification appears to me to be the only path forward to a libertarian system here in the Americas. I'd love to see a future where Colorado and California are free to pursue their own divergent agendas in the face of a reactionary federal govt, but we've set a precedent where secession can 'legally' be met with invasion, which is SO far from what the founders had in mind.

Yeah, ok, whatever. I'll repeat what I wrote, which you apparently didn't read:

Quote

Just trying to help. If you want to continue using this stance, don't be surprised when people are stunned and incredulous and associate libertarians with Bad Ideas.

Continue railing against federal overreach and secession and invasions and Confederacy. Just don't act shocked when people dismiss your other arguments that potentially have merit.

3) EVEN IF the secession of states was motivated by slavery, that still created a foreign and sovereign entity, and invading that entity is a separate moral issue from the one that forced secession.

4) The United States doesn't have the moral authority to conscript its own citizens, much less conscript them in the service of a foreign offensive war

The United States didn't even outlaw slavery in its own territories until well after the invasion had started. The two issues can (and should) be philosophically separable when you are talking about states rights. It is possible to believe that states have the moral right to secede and form their own unions, in any combination and for any reason, without also being pro-slavery. It is silly that even has to be stated, but apparently here we are.

Even if all of the above was true, it's just a really bad idea to use the Confederacy as an argument in favor of libertarianism and states' rights. I realize that there isn't a good example of a true libertarian state (kinda like communism) but the south and "it wasn't about slavery! it was about states' rights!) is not a good place to stand. There are dozens of books written on the subject that you can read.

Just trying to help. If you want to continue using this stance, don't be surprised when people are stunned and incredulous and associate libertarians with Bad Ideas.

And if you actually read what I wrote, I am not using the confederacy as an example of anything. The Confederacy was an autocratic centrally planned state where slavery was legal. It's as far away from libertarian as you can get.

I'm using the INVASION of the south as an example of the federal approach toward state nullification and secession, which is troubling insofar as state nullification appears to me to be the only path forward to a libertarian system here in the Americas. I'd love to see a future where Colorado and California are free to pursue their own divergent agendas in the face of a reactionary federal govt, but we've set a precedent where secession can 'legally' be met with invasion, which is SO far from what the founders had in mind.

Colorado can pursue its own agenda insofar as far it does not run afoul of the constitution. Accordingly, Colorado cannot legalize a number of practices, including slavery. Most people find that such protection is guaranteed to be comforting and not stifling. For example, I personally do not feel hemmed in and unable to start a business, own a home, etc., because my state cannot pass laws permitting slavery.

What a shock that the United States Supreme Court has failed to uphold the principles of the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions. The supremacy clause is only valid if the originating federal laws are, themselves, constitutional. The only recourse in our Republic to a federal government passing unconstitutional laws IS nullification. The Supreme Court is a rubber stamp authority, as we saw during FDR's reign, where constitutionality seldom enters into it.

Yes, if you look at historic interpretation of the constitution, states don't have the "right" to nullify federal law... because we invaded them the one time that it's been put to the test.

Oh boy. Where to start? Back in the 1930s culminating in 1936-37 the Supreme Court struck down a record amount of significant legislation, including the core of Roosevelt's e New Deal, the National Recovery Act (NRA) and the Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA), as well as minimum wage laws, and lots of other acts of Congress. I'll leave Roosevelt's reaction and attempted solution as an exercise for the reader. But rubber stamp? Your claims aren't even slightly plausible. It is like saying the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor or something.

And "the one time" states tried nullification in one form or another is actually quite a number of times, starting with the Whiskey Rebellion 1793 all the way through the Civil Rights moment and even up until the present day with gay marriage. The SCOTUS ruled that gay marriage is protected under the Constitution. Not all jurisdictions have agreed with that, and yet ultimately have been forced to comply by court order (see Kim Davis and Kentucky, for a few of many examples). Saying it was only tried one time is...kinda odd. Saying things that are clearly not true doesn't help your argument much.

But all that is a distraction from Sol's original point: You are not being forced to participate in society. You can check out if you like. If fact, that's what Dagny Taggart and company did. They didn't like society so they simply pulled the plug and moved away. You are are not being held at the point of a gun. You too, can leave if you see fit and create or joint a libertarian paradise with other like-minded folks.

Is someone forcing you to stay? If not, let us know how it goes when you stop volunteering to be in that society and leave! :)

lol...and now the rallying cry of the egalitarian, democratic-socialist millennials is the same as their ultra-conservative, racist, hippy-hating grandfathers. 'merica, love it or leave it.

All things do indeed come full circle, usually in the most hilarious of ways.

'Merica love it or leave it again?... The argument is less than one page back!

Soon It will be reiterated that's not what was meant, rather they meant what @Spork wrote above. Post modernism clearly dictates everyone's opinion is equally valid. Neoliberals couldn't possibly contradict their doctrine no matter how badly it chaps their hide in the moment... wait for it...

The invasion of the Confederacy put an end to the fiction that the government existed at the behest of the people... states don't have the "right" to nullify federal law... because we invaded them the one time that it's been put to the test.

You're about two steps away from "The South Shall Rise Again!" while you burn a wooden cross on my front lawn.

The America I live in asks that you follow certain rules. You are not obliged to follow them, unless you want to live among us. Life here is pretty sweet though, so I'd suggest you play along.

Meh. Large numbers of people don't pay for the good they receive from America. It has almost no effect on how awesome the country is. I see no reason to force everyone to pay for everything; in fact I think it would be unfair to expect all people to pay for the services and benefits they recieve.

Logged

Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

I think what bullcitybro is trying to get at is sort of a libertarian tenet of decentralization of power. States rights could be a big part of that; or just the idea that a group of coagulatable people have the right to make their own form of government; ie we should not be 'forced' to all be under the same leviathan of government situated in DC. Believing such a thing is in fact a way to make so that a group of people in one form or another own something like 10% of the world's land mass and and have significant control over at least 5% of the worlds people; shocking that they would not want a real check on that power. The Confederacy is a poor example of decentalization of power because it really was not an increase in that, really much more so. Secession, OTOH, (and not just limited to the political boundaries of a State), is very much in line with this idea.

I also think it is laughable that the same people that say we all need to be a part of this giant collective progressive society of 300 mil people are screaming that Trump* is not their president or he needs to be delegitimized. To be clear the only thing I like about him is that he is 'making' these people do this.

*At this point I doubt it would have mattered which Republican was the president, this level of political discourse was essentially inevitable.

*At this point I doubt it would have mattered which Republican was the president, this level of political discourse was essentially inevitable.

You must know that is likely untrue. Do you really honestly think that if Romney had won or if a Jeb Bush or Kasich had won this cycle that people would have thrown together general riots and cried for impeachment out of the gate?

The extreme reaction against Trump is a direct result of his extreme rhetoric. A normal Republican says, we have too much immigration and may want to dial that down. Trump comes out of the gate on his campaign announcement that Mexicans and rapists and criminals and we need to build a fucking wall to keep them out.

Trump is directly responsible for a a more rapid depredation of the public discourse and we all knew it would happen. The question is will it harm it only while he is in office or has he done lasting damage?

*At this point I doubt it would have mattered which Republican was the president, this level of political discourse was essentially inevitable.

You must know that is likely untrue. Do you really honestly think that if Romney had won or if a Jeb Bush or Kasich had won this cycle that people would have thrown together general riots and cried for impeachment out of the gate?

The extreme reaction against Trump is a direct result of his extreme rhetoric. A normal Republican says, we have too much immigration and may want to dial that down. Trump comes out of the gate on his campaign announcement that Mexicans and rapists and criminals and we need to build a fucking wall to keep them out.

Trump is directly responsible for a a more rapid depredation of the public discourse and we all knew it would happen. The question is will it harm it only while he is in office or has he done lasting damage?

As far as I am concerned anyone of those would have been the worst of the worst. I would have been the one saying 'Enough'. Who knows maybe Trump will at least keep us from going to war with Russia, doubt that would be the case with any of those.

*At this point I doubt it would have mattered which Republican was the president, this level of political discourse was essentially inevitable.

You must know that is likely untrue. Do you really honestly think that if Romney had won or if a Jeb Bush or Kasich had won this cycle that people would have thrown together general riots and cried for impeachment out of the gate?

The extreme reaction against Trump is a direct result of his extreme rhetoric. A normal Republican says, we have too much immigration and may want to dial that down. Trump comes out of the gate on his campaign announcement that Mexicans and rapists and criminals and we need to build a fucking wall to keep them out.

Trump is directly responsible for a a more rapid depredation of the public discourse and we all knew it would happen. The question is will it harm it only while he is in office or has he done lasting damage?

As far as I am concerned anyone of those would have been the worst of the worst. I would have been the one saying 'Enough'. Who knows maybe Trump will at least keep us from going to war with Russia, doubt that would be the case with any of those.

I actually think Trump makes war with Russia more likely, even if it's a proxy war like in Afghanistan in the 1980s. Putin could probably invade Ukraine (again) and Trump would shrug, so it's also true that Trump's willingness to let Putin do whatever he wants makes war less likely in the short term. However, Russia is interested in expanding its sphere of influence and seeing what it can get away with before the West engages. Trump in office is giving Putin a lot of room to push and push. Give Trump 8 years, and Putin will be in a stronger position, will have destabilized neighboring countries, and will make the West an order of magnitude more nervous than it is today. Eventually Trump will be out of office, and someone not beholden to Putin will be President. They will have to deal with a far less stable situation that Trump inherited and an emboldened Putin, and that is why, in the long term, war is more likely because we elected Trump. So thanks, Trump voters.

I didn't watch the video, mainly because I think Harry Dent is full of shit. If the US currency did collapse, so would many others (fiat currencies) being it's a regular use reserve currency. It probably wont because it's still backed by middle eastern oil. However, if it did, it would be a shit-hit-the-fan scenario. In this thread we discussed the two best options in such situation being either "hunker down" or "mobility", it's a fun read. Each would have its own preparation strategy. If you are interested from an investment standpoint read Taleb to see how to weather an unlikely, and largely unexpected event like US dollar collapse.